Syed QURBAN HUSSAIN SHAH and another vs MEMBER, (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitutional petition by the High Court regarding a land consolidation dispute. The petitioners had originally been allotted land of Class-IV quality, which was approximately three times the size of their original holdings, in 1965. Following subsequent proceedings, this allotted land was withdrawn, and the petitioners were restored to their original land. The petitioners argued that they had made significant improvements to the allotted land over the past two decades. The Supreme Court observed that while there might be technical merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding improvements, the petitioners had enjoyed the benefit of the additional land for over twenty years. The Court held that the benefits derived from the extra land during this extended period effectively compensated for any improvements made. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's decision, determining that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal.
- Does the long-term enjoyment of additional land during consolidation proceedings compensate for improvements made to that land when the land is subsequently withdrawn?
- Is a case involving the restoration of original land after a long-standing consolidation allotment a fit matter for the grant of leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in a consolidation matter, against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners' Constitutional petition.
2. ' As stated by the learned counsel according to original claim of consolidation the petitioners were given about three times the area of their own land but it was a Class-IV quality land. It happened in 1965. During the proceedings till now (the details of which are not necessary for the disposal of this petition), the area so given to the petitioners has been withdrawn and they have been returned their own land.
3. Undoubtedly there might be some force in the technical arguments raised by the learned counsel; particularly one with regard to the improvements made by the petitioners' side during the last more than two decades that the land initially granted to them, remained with them. But the fact remains that their own land has been returned to them. Not only this, as stated by the learned counsel, the improvements having been made in the very beginning they have reaped benefits from about 100 Kanals of extra land so improved, for this long period. On the other hand if originally the land belonging to them would have remained with them for this period, the area thereof being muchless as compared to what has been taken away from them, they would have earned much less. Therefore, broadly speaking, the improvements made by them, if any, got compensated by the income and benefit they derived from the additional land for such a long period.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel on various questions involved in the case, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused.